Pittsboro delays Reeves Farm development agreement after resident concerns over phasing, stormwater and affordable housing

The Pittsboro Board of Commissioners on Oct. 13 delayed action on the Reeves Farm development agreement and the phase 1 preliminary subdivision after residents and several commissioners said revisions to the agreement arrived too late for careful review. The board instead voted to table the measure and asked staff and the developer to return with clearer documentation and staff review before the next meeting.

The development agreement, required by rezoning conditions adopted in 2023, would fix many of the rules that govern how Reeves Farm Pittsboro LLC may develop the property. Developer representatives told the board the agreement would dedicate more than 45 acres of public recreation area, construct a 6,000-foot paved greenway inside the property, and fund park improvements with a $500,000 escrow payment "to stimulate the development of that park," according to a developer representative. The company also committed to provide 7.5% of the project’s entitlement as deed-restricted affordable housing — 112 units total — with deed restrictions for the lower-income tiers of 30 years and the highest tier for 15 years.

"We have done that in true land donation along the frontage," the developer said, describing the mix of land dedication and the additional escrow. Commissioners asked specifically whether the escrow or the park construction would be part of phase 1: staff and the developer confirmed the public recreation area A and the associated escrow deposit would be tied to phase-1 construction plan approval.

Board members and members of the public raised multiple concerns during the hearing. Questions centered on whether the development agreement and supporting technical documents (notably traffic impact analyses and a more complete phasing plan) met the expectations set in rezoning conditions, and whether the terms on multiuse-path construction and stormwater protections were sufficiently enforceable. One resident who lives near the project said the one-page phasing map provided to the public did not contain sufficient detail for a development of this scope; another asked whether affordable units would be spread across phases rather than clustered in later phases.

The multiuse path also drew scrutiny. Staff and the applicant described a construction approach in which multiple builders would construct path segments adjacent to the parcels they develop; the developer proposed completing the entire multiuse path within five years after phase-1 approval. Commissioners pressed for enforceable guarantees. Town staff said enforcement mechanisms in the development agreement could include withholding permits, cure periods and, for serious default, termination of the agreement.

Commissioners objected to receiving multiple amendments to the agreement shortly before the meeting. "When we receive a copy of this agreement hours before the meeting, it doesn't make us look good," one commissioner said. Another said planning-board volunteers deserved a full and complete plan before being asked for a formal recommendation. After discussion, the board voted to table the development agreement and the preliminary plat until the next regular meeting to allow staff to review the updated materials and to give the public and the board more time to evaluate outstanding technical items.

What happens next: Staff will review the revised development agreement on the developer’s table and circulate clarifying information requested by commissioners, including specifics on the multiuse path phasing, the timing and use of the $500,000 escrow, the distribution and deed restrictions for affordable units, and outstanding traffic/transportation analysis. The preliminary plat for phase 1 was also tabled until the development-agreement questions are resolved.